Member Info for Piler

"There aint any reason to be rude." Yes there is.

noadvice4u - it's perfectly reasonable for group membership to be open to shareholders only, else the door would be WIDE open to those with an agenda to thwart its efforts maliciously (they could still slip through the 'net', of course, but this stipulation reduces the chances of it happening and limits potential damage in the event it does / has). As to non-shareholders showing support and sympathy, I'd rather they do so using public forums / sites as this is bound to result in our noble cause gaining far greater exposure than would be the case were they to use the hSG site. Sympathy and moral support isn't really going to help at this stage (much as it is appreciated - don't get me wrong), unless the latter is of the financial variety. This being the case, I'm sure group members would be amenable to an alternative arrangement! Finally, I'm sorry for the silliness of my last post but it was late, I was a bit sozzled and you had been a potty mouth - tut-tut.

"get your act together HSG and stop being twats with your supporters." Excuse me - did you just use the word cunnilinguo*******sarseinjectedwallockmound?

Meant "More seriously"! Blasted keyboard.

"Chablis"? Hmph - that's for communists! Burgundy is so passé. Now coal tar cordial is where it's at. More seriousl I cannot think of a semi-fledgling company trading on a public exchange today with more potential (commercial and - by virtue of the nature of their products - philanthropic) than AVCT. May be a bumpy ride, though, given cashflow requirements, but at least most of the R & D has been completed successfully.

Blackberry tweeting in the dead of night Take their offering so you can fly Save your life - or you'll soon be waiting for the bailiffs to arrive And they say that Gilbert O'Sullivan couldn't write lyrics!

But whilst I am here, here's the introduction on the home page of their website "Macromac Group of Companies is a Malaysia-based company offering innovative software solutions, quality development and consultancy services to its clients nationwide the company with track record success had diversified into various fields like software development, multimedia, mobile technologies, and complete set of web design, web development and online marketing solutions. Macromac awarded as a MSC status company(certificate no: 2164) effective in March 2009 as Mobile Solutions company" Dear me - I appreciate English is probably not their first language but this really needs to be nailed!

Nah - just us chickens

BP - the onus isn't and shouldn't be on us to explain how if the top brass have gone on public record stating they would (as they did). Yell/hibu were/are trading on a PUBLIC exchange - open to all, not just those with a background in accountancy. I'm still rather new to all this and - maybe as a result - yes, I believed the RNSs. Do I feel silly for having done so? Not in slightest. Will I take them (RNSs in general) at face value again? Not on your Nelly, but then that'll be due to experience - we're not born with it. All that said, aren't we still talking a free cash flow of well into nine figures? If so I'm afraid I simply don't buy what's happened (no pun intended), especially as the debt had been halved at the time of the suspension. I realise they have to make provision for mass-redundancy pay in case it comes to that, but their operational overheads are small and would surely become miniscule on converting more or less fully to digital. It's almost as if they were waiting until shareholders had done most of the dirty work re. this before doing the dirty on them.

They're only a gamble, though, in the sense that buying them can be risky. As I posted here not too long ago, it's not a gamble in the way that playing roulette is as you do actually own something. This makes it harder to take. Anyway, sorry to hear this debacle has hit your pension - hopefully it hasn't too heavily and good luck with any other and / or future investments.

"Can I as why no one read the RNSs or sold out?" Well I did - I read the following RNSs "Yell's strong cash flows have enabled the Group to meet all of its scheduled debt repayments and to accelerate early repayment of debt for the second time in four months." Tony Bates, Chief Financial Officer of hibu/Yell; hibu RNS (number 6480F); 28 April 2011 "Following the appointment of Goldman Sachs and Greenhill as advisers in May and an extensive review of the options, the Board has decided to move proactively and engage with our stakeholders. Our aim is to formulate a capital structure which will support the Group's exciting business potential while safeguarding existing shareholders' interests to the fullest extent possible." Bob Wigley, Chairman; hibu RNS (number 7538I); 30 July 2012 "During the first half, the Group has continued to make significant progress on its four year strategy to build a material new digital business”. Mike Pocock, CEO; hibu RNS (number 9457Q); 13 November 2012 It seems Pocock also told the Guardian in 2011 that they would meet all their debt obligations between then and when they were due to mature in 2015 without the need to renegotiate, and that an announcement re. hibu would be made at the Microsoft annual conference last year. That's what reeled me in. I didn't sell after that ridiculously ambiguous and meaningless 'warning' because by the time it was announced the backside had already dropped out of the share price.

Would have cost about a measly 20 million quid to have done so - peanuts in the scheme of things.

Wallop of the cod variety. By the way, BP, you do realise I was quoting Mille in my last post?

"£1700 is 1M. So £17k buys 100M"?! Am i missing something? Couldn't resist the "hold" rec. whilst I was here.

Indeed - when there are so many devoted to that sort of filth! Hmph! (Sorry ceebsy - said I wasn't going to post for a bit but just checked the sitwe in my lunch break and had to be the first to comment on that!)

Hmmm - slippery as eels smeared with soap weren't they? Aside from the subjectivity of interpretation you rightly describe, though, technically it was mutant udders and literally nonsensical given that dictionary definition. Probably not worth pursuing as I'm sure there are more compelling battering rams to use against the BOD than semantic errors. Anyway, first day back at work from hols today for me so signing off for a bit. Will probably check in next week. Nighty-night.

"once it became clear the company was insolvent then the BoDs primary duty switched to the creditors. That's not a conflict of interest" No - I guess not, but it depends on your definition of insolvency given that hibu appeared to have still been highly cash generative and had defaulted voluntarily. In any event, it doesn't relieve them of their fiduciary obligations to shareholders completely does it? Perhaps it does. Seems jolly unfair if so.

Hi again BP. Well firstly, your perception of events is going to be shaped strongly by the point at which you got in. I accept that those who got in after the "little or no value being attributable to the Group's ordinary shares" statement were taking more of a risk, but I didn't. Besides, it was misleading by virtue of being LITERALLY meaningless. The Oxford English Dictionary definition (Google it) of the verb "attribute" is uniquely to "regard something as being caused by", so to say that the options being considered are likely to result in little or no value being attributable to the shares is equivalent to saying that these options are likely to result in the state or quality of having little or no value being the fault of the shares. This is clearly nonsensical. Characteristics / qualities are attributable to their sources - actions cannot attribute characteristics / qualities. This is not just Jesuitical pedantry on my part and it begs the question of why they didn't use simple words to the effect of "the options are likely to cause the shares to have little or no value"? That would have been clear and straightforward, and therefore much less pretentious! Also misleading was Pocock's assertion, as I believe was reported in The Guardian on Thursday 14 July 2011, that they would meet all of their debt obligations until they mature in 2015 without any need to renegotiate their obligations. If The Guardian lied or misquoted him I apologise. Then, as I recall, there was his claim that an announcement re. Yell (as it was then) would be made at the annual Microsoft conference that year, when there was none. Note - annual Microsoft conference, not a meeting of the Basildon Chamber of Commerce (no offence to Basildonians - Basildonian?) "Stating that they were akin to a bank would only be taken literally by a simpleton." I agree fully, and I certainly never took this LITERALLY. I did, however, take it FIGURATIVELY in the context of breaching loan covenants at about the same time. If that makes me simple then mine's a cup of Horlicks with a digestive please. I believe incompetence was displayed on several occasions - oh, but I see you agree so I'll leave it there (tell you what though - one man's apparent incompetence is another's complicity!). Conflicts of interest? Well I'm basing this on such rumours (which I now believe to be credible) that BW bought a significant amount of debt and Goldman Sachs were acting as advisers after outbidding all others in the debt auction. Who knows? Remember - I stated all of this as an opinion only (though I will stand by the claim that the "little or no value being attributable statement" was truly nonsensical as well as being misleading, and will do so unless Susie Dent disabuses me of this). I am also an active member of the EKA (Elvis was the reincarnation of King Arthur) society and believe the wearing of purple underwear can

"this (no doubt well-meaning) sage" wasn't directed at you lemmink, I hasten to add

"Comment: Shareholders surely needed to take action a lot earlier if they thought the directors were not acting in their interests." Someone ought to point out to this (no doubt well-meaning) sage that shareholders were in no position to do much because they didn't know what the hell was going on. Why? Well because the company were being about as communicative as Trappist monks since the debt auction. Even developments that warranted RNSs in my opinion were not accompanied by them. That said, the action group WAS formed before shares were suspended (I believe). The now notorious statement "The Group can confirm that the options being considered are likely to result in little or no value being attributed to the Group’s ordinary shares” came very late in the day, and - furthermore - was hard to act on because IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY MEAN ANYTHING! What, you ask? Well I realise that on a first reading the meaning seems clear, but it's so vague as to be - literally - meaningless. Unlike, for instance, "the Group confirms that the options being considered are likely to result in its ordinary shares having little or no value." Now THAT would have meant something. Thanks for the post all the same lemmink and making us aware of ShareSoc.